Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of James Buchanan


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality of James Buchanan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I only found this article through Talk:James Buchanan; it is not linked to from any articles and rightly so. A POV fork whose content, by definition, can only be speculation unless there's some groundbreaking new information that comes out. I was going to just replace it with a redirect given the orphan status but decided to nominate it here instead. In addition to the POV fork objection, I can't think of a reason why it would justify an article. If it becomes a big enough issue, a section can be created at James Buchanan (the poor man is only known as the one who fudged things up prior to Lincoln - being known as the first gay president would be an improvement). Recognizance (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Becksguy (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POVFORK of the main article, which includes most of this detail and language without the emphasis on a particular source. JJL (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There essentially isn't any content here that isn't in the main article James Buchanan (except for one reference, which I will add there). No point in arguing Merge or Keep for an article (existing since 2005), that mostly duplicates content in the main article, some of which is phrased slightly differently. Also, there really isn't enough meat here to justify a separate article. Once deleted, I (or someone else) will add a REDIRECT. — Becksguy (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Becksguy; there is no information here that can't be found in the main article, and this small amount of information does not justify the separate article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears the article exists to drive home a point through synthesis. Giving it a separate page gives it undue weight. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete MGM is correct about the undue weight issue, and the discussion of the subject in the main article is far superior - merger could actually degrade the main article. Townlake (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.